Via Instapundit come…

Via Instapundit comes word from many sources of the bribery behind the scenes as Saddam tried to avoid war.

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

I wonder how much bribery Kerry, had he been President, would have had to provide to one-up Saddam. What’s more likely is that France could not be (re)bought and we still wouldn’t have had them on our side. Honestly, are these an actions of a US ally? With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France – having been granted oil contracts – would veto any American plans for war.

And even now they won’t send troops, regardless of who wins the White House. Yet still the Kerry camp complains that French companies were frozen out of bidding for contracts in the rebuilding of Iraq. Are our dollars being spent and our men & women being killed so that bribed French companies and a cowardly French government can get enriched by our sacrifices? I don’t think so.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the “guiding theme” of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.”

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions – which stopped him acquiring weapons – were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

All Saddam had to do was convince “peace” activists that sanctions had “worked”. As soon as that happened, the “useful idiots” would have served their purpose. That’s what you’d get for taking a murderous dictator at his word.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China – three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the “primary motive for French co-operation” was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then “targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac,” it said, including two of his “counsellors” and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

They even assessed the chances for “supporting one of the candidates in an upcoming French presidential election.” Chirac is not mentioned by name.

And Kerry thinks it makes sense to trust France…why, exactly? The definition of “ally” really becomes strained to the point of breaking at this point.

The question is now…well, it’s best expressed by Tony Blair.

Speaking during his trip to Ethiopia last night, the Prime Minister referred to his speech last week where he admitted being “wrong” in the main part of his case for war but right to see a gathering threat in Iraq.

“Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren’t working,” he said.

Honesty? From the world body that brought us Oil-for-Palaces&Terrorists? Hold not thy breath.

Again via Instapundit comes this article that adds more details.

“He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies,” said the report.

It named hundreds of entities who allegedly benefited from contracts to sell Iraqi oil. Among them was “one UK citizen”.

Although the list included many legitimate oil traders, it also contained the names of politicians, political parties and other groups with little obvious connection to the oil industry.

Among those named were Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN’s humanitarian programme; President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia; the former French interior minister Charles Pasqua; and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the founder of Russia’s Liberal Democratic Party.

How can we possibly submit our foreign policy to a “global test” if the voting is rigged? (Answer: We shouldn’t.)

This is slightly disturbing…

The CIA’s internet list appeared to have been edited to protect the identities of several firms and individuals from the US and other countries that supported the war.

…although it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Why would Saddam target people who supported the war, something he was plainly trying to avoid? Perhaps these are folks who turned down the bribes, which I’d say is a Good Thing. Redacting their names may simply be for privacy’s sake and to avoid guilt-by-association.

Iraq’s security services “flagged two groups influential to France’s policy in the UN Security Council – government officials and influential citizens”, the report said.

It disclosed that a $12 billion deal to build economic relations with Iraq was discussed with Russia’s energy minister.

A staggering 32 per cent of oil-for-food contracts went to Russia in the form of oil vouchers and gifts in which the new oligarchs, officials and political parties were principal beneficiaries.

“The lion’s share of Iraq’s undeveloped oil fields went to Russia,” said the report. In 2002, Russian firms negotiated 10-year contracts to begin exploring Iraqi oil fields.

An American official said: “There are a lot of active members of the Security Council who were violating the resolutions that they passed.”

Color me shocked. Or not. The UN is about as illegitimate a body as you can get. Why should we ever care what they think from this point on?

(Cross-posted on Redstate.org. Comments welcome.)

UPDATE: Saddam was working the other side as well. He was waiting for inspections to stop so his WMD programs could kick back in, but he was also hurrying up the inspectors.

Iraqi oil officials have accused a United Nations inspector of taking almost £60,000 in bribes from Saddam Hussein’s regime as his henchmen and foreign business partners siphoned millions from the UN’s oil-for-food programme, it was reported yesterday.

An inquiry by officials in the State Oil Marketing Organisation – a body which, under Saddam, was a key player in schemes that allegedly diverted billions in oil revenues from the UN-run programme – accused an inspector contracted through the Dutch company Saybolt of falsifying documents in return for bribes, the Wall Street Journal reported.

After inspections by bribed people, “peace” activists would have considered this state of affairs “working”. Naivete can be deadly, eh?

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!